Principles of Ethics

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course Details

Institutional Affiliation

Due Date

 

 

 

 

Principles of Ethics

Introduction

The code of ethics for a professional organization incorporates professional standards, principles, and values. These are the things responsible for streamlining healthcare and ensuring that medical practitioners use them as a guideline to improve the quality of services rendered to patients. The current healthcare information system is a bit multifaceted, and a code of ethics is a fundamental resource, especially in the decision-making process. This paper seeks to discuss the permissibility of the four ethics principles concerning the scenario represented and compare and contrast the implications to determine the best possible solution to the dilemma.

Implications of the Four Principles of Ethics

Autonomy

Autonomy dictates that the patient has the right to retain control over his body. This principle is against the coercion or persuasion of a patient to make decisions. Still, it allows the health care workers to suggest or advise the patient and leave the decision-making to the patient. The patient is free to make the decisions according to his personal beliefs and values independently; even the health practitioner believes the choices made are not in the patient’s best interest. In our scenario, according to this principle, the healthcare professional will be going against this principle. According to the principle, the patient has a right over his body, meaning if things are bad as indicated, he has the right to know and be prepared both mentally and psychologically (Armstrong, 2006). It is understandable what the family feared that telling him he had no chance of making it out alive would kill his will to fight the disease, it was not in their place to make the call, and neither was it the medical practitioner’s call. In this case, the principle does not necessarily have the patient’s interest at heart, given that news such as this is bound to weigh in on him and drain him emotionally, one of the few ways to die faster. Besides, patients do not always understand what is in their best interest and need guidance in understanding what is good or not towards gaining a quicker recovery while in the hospital.

Beneficence

The principle dictates that in whatever the medical practitioners do, the outcome should stand to benefit the patients at all times. All the recommended treatments and procedures must bear the intention to do most for the patient. Maintaining a high level of skill and knowledge is fundamental in ensuring beneficence, and must consider the patient’s circumstances. Besides, medical professionals must ensure they are trained in the best and current medical practices. In our case, the medical practitioner must understand that he is mandated under the principle to do right by the patient, regardless of the length he has to go. Bearing this in mind, the health professional did right by the patient by not disclosing that there was no hope for him anymore (Armstrong, 2006). By so doing, he saved the patient from a possible mental and psychological breakdown of staring at death, not knowing what to do to escape the nightmare. Based on this argument, the medical practitioner’s choice of zipping it was in the patient’s best interest despite having to go against his own belief to do so. Making such call are usually very hard in the medical field, and having to go against your own belief to do it, is even more challenging. In our case, making a choice was not that hard after all, as at the time, all that mattered most was the patient’s wellbeing, both mentally and psychologically.

Non-Maleficence

 

This is the most common of the ethical principles, and it translates to causing no harm. In the medical practitioners’ decision-making process, the end goal should be to cause harm to society or other people. Nobody should be hurt out of the decisions settled upon, even if it was made to benefit an individual patient (Armstrong, 2006). With this, the decision reached is due to the family concern for their loved one, and as such, no one is bound to get hurt. The family can settle the matter with the extended family if need be, but the call was the right one given that no one is bound to get hurt. In this case, the health professional’s decision was the right one as no one gets hurt in the end. Some decisions are normally hard to make in the health practice, especially those that have to do with the patient’s wellbeing. One may feel he is doing right by the patient, only for him to hurt another person elsewhere unawares. In our scenario, the health professional had an easy call to make. The thought of concealing full disclosure came from the patient’s family, and it happened to be the right call as the decision would eventually protect the patient’s well-being.

Justice

The principle of justice advocates for fairness in all medical decisions. Especially in decisions bound to benefit or burden and fairness in equal distribution of new treatments and scarce resources. The medical practitioners are also required to uphold the legislation and the applicable laws when making choices. In this scenario, the medical practitioner acted in the patient’s best interest because the news that there was no hope of recovery would taunt and burden him psychologically. Keeping the unpleasant information was ideal, as the patient would have suffered a faster death than the one he was already facing because of the toll the news would have had on him.

Compare and Contrast

Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and justice principle all care about the patient’s wellbeing. The similarity presented in these is in the outcome, that is, if the decision made has the patient’s best interest at heart. In all three, the medical practitioner must do what he has to do as long as it augers well with what is essential- the patient’s wellbeing. Beneficence compels the health workers to do whatever they must to benefit the patient; Non-Maleficence dictates that the decision made should cause no harm, while justice talks of fairness in the decision that burden. All these are standing up for what is right and just on the part of the patient (Armstrong, 2006). The patient in question has a tumor that cannot be removed, meaning he is bound to die sooner than later. The patient’s family have agreed not to disclose the sad news to their loved one, and according to these principles, the medical professional is free to make a choice not to deliver the unfortunate news to the patient; if by so doing, he serves the best interest of the patient. In our scenario, the patient in question is probably dying. All a person like that needs is empathy and care, instead of delivering tantrums to him, adding salt to injury that would only drive him to depression, leading him to a quicker death than anyone could anticipate.

A contrast exists between the Autonomy principle and the other principles because the patient is the sole decision-maker in the whole process. In autonomy, the patient has all the right and power over his body and can decide he deems fit even if it does not sit well with the medical practitioners. What complicates matters more is that the health professionals can only advise the patient but not coerce him into making decisions that may be for his good, to mean the medical professional cannot decide on behalf of the patient. On the contrary, the other three principles allow the health professional to determine what is best for the patient and decide to auger well with his health.

Solution

Based on the underlying factors such as depression, early death, and panic, the patient should be kept in the dark about the impending bad news. No human being can take the news about dying lightly, and since in his case that is the outcome, it is better to have his hopes up and have him psyched up with the hope of recovery, and maybe by that, he will be able to enjoy the little time that he has left to live. Revealing to him, the sad news may cause his condition to deteriorate quicker than anyone can fathom, and that will kill him faster.

Conclusion

The four principles should be there to guide the healthcare professional on rationality. It is not always easy to know what is right for a patient without seeking guidance from these principles. They make it easy for one to make critical decisions bound to positively or negatively affect the patient. Without the principles to offer guidance, the medical practitioner thought he was doing a wrong thing concealing such information from the patient. In the real sense, he was saving the patient from a possible psychological and mental breakdown. The principles have been fundamental in providing a lifeline in the medical field’s decision-making process, and the essential ones that care for the patients more are Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Armstrong, A. E. (2006). Towards strong virtue ethics for nursing practice. Nursing Philosophy, 7(3), 110-124.